Since I was a child I have been unconvinced by the notion of the spiritual realm and a God with divine powers. I resonate with your point that faith acts as a tool to answer questions that don’t have clear answers or to offer hope when hope is otherwise hard to find, and have grappled with the absence of these positive facets of faith in my own perspective. However, I have come to understand that my disbelief in God does not negate faith in other things, the strength of human conviction or the loyalty in brotherhood to name a few and this reinforces me in a similar way to faith in God.
In my study of the philosophy of religion, one of the most profound understandings of theism in my perspective was Sigmund Freud's explanation of the need for a God. Freud's view emphasizes his outlook on the pressing psychological yearning of individuals for a perfect father figure- a role that is often imperfectly or never fulfilled in individuals' lives. This explanation of the need for spirituality transcends the physical, sociological, psychological, and spiritual pointed out in your video, as it relies on the specific and widely-applicable phenomena experienced by people across a myriad of cultures. The creation of a God, along with worship of the God, can simply be explained by parental and generational trauma, as well as a seemingly epigenetic trait within individuals, according to Freudian philosophy.
I recently began pursuing some research in the realm of motivation. In my case focusing on motivation in education and learning, specifically focusing on the sociological and psychological impacts and the struggles that they can present. Though love does not have as much of an impact in this one case, this spiritual, uncanny love plays a major role in my other motivations in life. I often find myself unworried about social fears and even ignoring my mental well-being to do something significant for an important person in my life. Love is the driving force in many of my decisions.
When I was younger, my elementary school held an annual donation drive for hungry families. Out of a desire to be a good person, I went around collecting donations from my friends and families to support the cause. When I finally turned it in, I felt nothing. The charity event came back the following year. I didn’t participate. Reflecting back, I ask myself, why did I want to be a good person? The answer, because I thought it would bring me pleasure. Despite what C.S. Lewis claims, there’s no motive unsullied by the allure of reward. You cannot expect people to act on ideals alone, for we only align ourselves with said ideals based on the pleasures they provide. Reason requires reward, and no concept by itself benefits the individual. Rationality is selfishness and all humans are rational, proving that “it’s not possible to really be selfless.” (Dr. Marchbanks).
I agree with Richard Bach’s assertion that we are all innately selfish. We may act selflessly, but in reality, we do it because of some reward. However, I also agree with C.S. Lewis’s statement in The Problem of Pain that “rewards don’t sully motives.” Let’s examine the case of someone who volunteers at a homeless shelter every weekend because they think that it is the right thing to do. They do what they think is right because they are rewarded by feeling good. This doesn’t make their actions invalidated. Their actions are genuine because they enjoy helping people.
The idea of selflessness is a concept I have been intrinsically aware, sometimes, rather obsessed with, since I was a child. As I developed into a young adult, I realized I would not grow as a person in the ways I desired if I only thought about the needs of others. I believe that, while the idea Jesus presents in Matthew 6 explains the need for us to be ever-selless, this habitual selflessness can be paired with an effort to keep one’s own needs intact. In Marrow of Tradition, Janet commits an incredibly selfless act, but not before exclaiming her own feelings and emotions. Just like motivation, selflessness can be “messy”, a blend of selflessness and personal needs can be difficult to formulate and maintain.
I do not believe that we are all innately selfish. Instead, our motivations are driven by complex layers of understanding that build upon each other. It is necessary to delve deeper to identify these motivations. I find Professor Marchbank's model of the spiritual substratum accurately depicting the multidirectional nature of the relationship between these layers. While the familiar material world is on the surface, we often fail to explore deeper and instead make the blanket assumption that all actions stem from self-preservation. Without attempts to gain a deeper understanding, we remain unable to see the foundational bedrock--the spiritual dimension--that ultimately motivates our actions.
As a Catholic, I was taught that we are born in the image and likeness of God. So, when I began your video, I struggled understanding that we are innately selfish and there’s no way around it, as God wouldn’t intentionally do this in my mind. Unconsciously, the decisions one makes can have a more significant meaning than observed. Dr. Marchbanks discusses that altruism is an illusion, which makes me ponder how many actions I have performed inherently knowing it was for my benefit. I question Stevie’s motives in The Secret Agent because his actions, such as taking the bomb for Verloc, are not ones he intentionally knows are evil. He was doing a favor for the good of others, which combats this idea.
I don't believe that all humans are innately selfish and only feel or act sympathetic due to survival. I know this through seeing the selflessness of my mom and the love she shows for not only me but others. She will always go out of her way and sacrifice her comfort for others. When I was younger I would actually be frustrated by how much love she had for others since it was rarely reciprocated for her. As I grew and faced trauma, I still have hope and faith that there is a love that's pure, without ulterior motives even if I can't see it every day or it's blurred through hate because my mom exists, therefore, love exists.
Sigmund Freud's model of the unconscious, talks about the limited surfacing of mental activity, this resonates with the impact of alcohol on behavior. The inebriated state may reveal subconscious desires, typically restrained. Alcohol's influence on the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making and judgment between conscious and unconscious realms. Richard Bach's implied selfish motivations are only for our benefit. I agree with this view, even the act of giving love turns out to be for our own benefit, whether for happiness or receiving love. Both Freud and Bach talk about the conscious and unconscious realms and the selfishness behind our actions, further exploring the complexities of consciousness and motivation in human behavior.
Sacrificial love does reign in human blood. Despite human motivation being inherently messy, I think humans practice agape--but most people don’t have access to this love until they become a parent. To raise a child well, caring and loving for a being while expecting nothing in return, is the definition of selflessness. Like your model, I think maternal instincts go past the material world and reveal greater forces at play. In The Secret Agent, Winnie demonstrates agape with Stevie, as she shapes her entire life around his safety without ever needing anything in return from him. This maternal love for her brother is the founding force of his happiness, and sometimes the downfall of hers, but it’s worth it in the eyes of a mother.
The spiritual realm, although seemingly different from the physical, sociological, and psychological realms, actually manifests in each of these. This is why Jesus' parables, or O'Connor's stories are so effective; they use common situations to communicate the complexities of the spiritual realm. For example, Matthew 18 outlines the parable of the unforgiving servant, not to simply tell a good story, but to uncover the spiritual significance of forgiveness and mercy. Forgiveness and mercy are not traits of a self-preserving organism and suggest a deeper motivation rooted in the spiritual realm. Some may argue that the good feeling of righteousness and fairness after forgiving someone is the inherent selfishness of man, but as CS Lewis suggests "there are rewards that don't soley motives."
The time is now to do the right thing, to think long and hard in the moment. As the moment is all we have. I believe that we live in a world where meaning is in the states we experience rather than the outcomes of their byproduct. Beyond all change is the omnipresent possibility of lifting a smile onto a stranger’s face, as the light in that connection may never dim. Trust is the backbone of my faith in the spiritual realm, be it in the mystery of what is left unanswered or what we do know. Never sacrificing hunger for complacency, I feel ablaze.
I have previously considered the idea of “agape” and whether it is possible to be entirely selfless, coming to the conclusion that it is nearly impossible. However, I had not considered that this idea may be rooted in a desire for self-preservation rather than self-importance. The concept of self-preservation driving supposed selflessness is a reminder of Olivia Carteret’s reasoning in Chesnutt’s novel. She feigns selflessness by claiming she will donate Janet’s share of inheritance to Dr. Miller’s hospital when it is actually an attempt to keep her from incrimination. Richard Bach’s theory of one’s conscience being a measure of honesty of selflessness is also applicable. Olivia considers her decision a “comfortable conclusion” demonstrating her lack of honesty regarding her motivations.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provides a rigid, logical approach to understanding human behavior. However, people do not necessarily pursue their needs in Maslow’s order. Take, for example, a monk who neglects the need for shelter and nourishment in the pursuit of spiritual actualization. The behavior exhibited by someone, like a monk, who ignores certain needs in the pursuit of higher purpose supports your assertion that life’s layers are interactive. Moreover, the behavior that would drive one to ignore their essential needs points to a higher spiritual level of etiquette such as the agape love that Jesus preaches.
The idea is that everything that a person does for another, is in some way a benefit back to themselves, points to the fact that the sacrificial love that one makes for another is flawed and unattainable. Though it may be very difficult and possibly even angelic, I believe that humans can achieve this state of mind. To me, this seems to be the only way to alter the deeply inherited flaws that we have when it comes to international and human conflict. If this sort of agape love, where acts of going good for nothing in return, can become a sort of popular or desired state of consciousness, the human race has the potential for things that we couldn't even imagine. It doesn't matter where such love comes from, whether that be physical, sociological, psychological, or spiritual, it only matters that it is there.
Describing the complexity of life with levels is important as it acknowledges a moment accomplishing growth on multiple fronts. This idea is proof of a greater Designer at the helm, as "moments" cultivate within our physical body, society, psychological mind, and spirit, as if it is roots reaching into us. People have different depths of layers depicting what resonates most, but everyone's layers are harder to dig the deeper you go. When reaching thick soil or rockhead they are tempted to ground themselves as many are scared to find what may lay in their bedrock is a weak foundation.
In one of the earlier videos for Life is Layered, you utilized an image that I think is far more accurate in illustrating the layered life method. It showed the various layers penetrating each other, which I believe illustrates the lives we live. The layers are not static and rigid in their existence, but instead flow together and mix to create the whole of life and our experience of it. While the presented model is useful in dissecting the aspects of life, I think that earlier model better illustrates what Aquinas and others feel and experience. A mixture of parts that create a unique whole.
In Hebrew, the word for love is “ahava” and it has a similar meaning to the Greek “agape.” Ahava means that you are giving to someone, rather than imposing love onto someone. Major Carteret’s love for Dodie is arguably the antithesis of ahava. Manifestations of his love are attempts to further the propagation of his lineage and the prestige he feels entitled to; he utilizes his wife’s family wealth to invest in his media empire and businesses, attempts a government coup to secure power and wealth, yet spends little actual time with his son. His “love” benefits his hubris and imposes his future desires on to Dodie; it is akin to those who give alms for their reputation rather than altruism.
While I don’t believe a truly selfless act is possible, I do believe that doing a good act and not dwelling on it is the closest we can get. Dwelling on one’s own good deed narcissistically feeds the ego. C.S. Lewis’s idea that rewards don’t always sully motives also carries weight. A good act can still affect someone positively even if it was done for selfish reasons. Only someone living fully in the present can stop reminiscing on their good deeds and forgo their selfish intentions for the future. In Conrad’s The Secret Agent, Stevie’s intentions are good when he bombs the observatory, but the act is bad and selfish because he wants to stop the pain he feels when other people suffer.
To further complicate your ideas about agape love and selflessness, I’ll say that the presence of the kind of love you described can enable true selflessness. Agape love expects nothing in return but I think humans crave love (psychological layer) and acts of selflessness allow us to achieve it. We all know that offering aid and doing tasks for other people gets them to care about us and shows them that we care, but being generous to obtain and maintain agape love allows for true selflessness because although the reward might be clear, it's not guaranteed.
Agape love, the truest form of selfless love, was something I first learned about many years ago in Catholic school. This form of love is truly expressed by God, and a mother's love for her child is the second closest form of love. Unfortunately, as Dr. Marchbanks stated in the video, many theorists believe that is almost humanly impossible to be truly selfless, and there is always some selfish motivation underlying our actions in order for us to be rewarded. In "The Marrow of Tradition," Olivia Carteret selflessly gets on her hands and knees in front of the Millers--essentially humiliating herself--in order to save the life of Dodie; however, she selfishly wants her child to live despite the very recent passing of the Millers' child. Through Olivia's example, the ideas proposed in the video are heavily supported since motivation clouds selfless acts, showing how messy our lives truly are.
My best friend and I practice selfless love. I often find myself thinking, if she wants or needs something, I'd rather her have it than me. My love is reciprocated in kind. Humans are deeply social creatures and this is the backbone of our interactions with others. Biology suggests this is strategic. However, agape is a steep perversion of mammalian altruistic behaviors; generosity between friends rarely improves the survival of the human race. Perhaps the social and psychological elements of selfless love point to a metaphysical, spiritual, and eternal connection with others.
In my opinion, for an act to be considered selfless, one’s motives must be examined thoroughly. However, it is impossible to label someone’s action as selfless independent of knowing their exact thoughts since one’s own thoughts can only be truly known by themselves. Therefore, someone who believes they are selfless could very well already be performing acts of selfishness and is just lacking the “capacity to look consciously” and admit that they are, in fact, already committing a “crime against his own sense of self,” as mentioned in the beginning of the video.
What is necessary for living a fulfilling life is up for interpretation. What I believe to be an undeniable truth is that while, according to Maslow, surface-level needs must be dealt with to survive, addressing one's needs that go beyond the surface is necessary to truly live. Winnie, for example, only addressed her Physiological and safety needs by marrying Verloc. Unsurprisingly her life came to a tragic end. While there is no correct answer, I find that models that address one's needs that go beyond the surface, such as Dr. Marchbanks' model or a version of Maslow's pyramid that does not prioritize surface-level needs, are the blueprint for living a fulfilling life.
I really appreciate the approach you took, helping us to consider the whole person by looking at us from different perspectives. Having said that, I wonder if "layers" says exactly what we need to say. As an analytical tool - a metaphor we know has limits - it works; but I suspect that the self that is spirit is much more than one "layer" upon others. C.S. Lewis spoke of the spirit shot through all other dimensions, not just a part of us. But having said that (and I agree with CSL), I don't have a better way to say it than what you did. Well done!
I totally agree, Mike, that the spiritual dimension interpenetrates the others--that, in fact, all the layers interpenetrate one another! I make this point early in Part 2 of this series: ruclips.net/video/SuL5GUYjEOA/видео.html
I’m still not sure that “stratum” or “dimension” are accurate descriptors of the spiritual-not that I quarrel with your use as an expedient. I suspect that the life of the spirit, especially that of the Holy Spirit, is more like the aether Medievals talked about, and the material is embedded it in a variety of ways. How to say the virtually unsayable (at least now, short of Eternity) is a useful struggle. Nice talk!
Dr. M proposes whether all our actions, even unconsciously, are selfish. In Marrow of Tradition, Janet appears selfish for allowing her half-sister Olivia's son to receive life-saving care from her husband while with her dead child. However, I believe that Janet's decision might be driven by an unconscious desire to avoid the guilt of not saving a child when she had the power to do so. This created an uncomfortable thought that my seemingly selfish acts might not be inherently selfish, as our bodies may be protecting our mental health by preventing guilt, which can threaten our well-being. Our unconscious could prioritize our hierarchy of needs to ensure survival by minimizing negative emotions like guilt.
The idea of altruism has often been preached in churches that I have attended, but it is often accompanied by passages about Jesus’s acts and subsequently the idea of “earning” your way to heaven. This logic completely contradicts the teachings of Christ. In my relationship and interactions I am often asked to complete a task or act that on the surface has no return on investment for myself. Even though I am more than willing to comply it is usually with the thought in mind that the favor will be repaid and as such, I cannot consider myself altruistic.
While I believe that God is the only one who is able to show complete, unconditional love, I think that it is also possible for humans to demonstrate agape love. God created humans in His image, giving them the ability to demonstrate God’s qualities. Richard Bach’s saying reminds me of “Friends,” when Joey claims that everything anyone does is selfish, even if it's for the good of another person. Although I understand how this can be true, I don't believe this aligns with God's intentions with humans. God has given humans activities that both bring them pleasure and bring Him glory.
I find Bach’s assertion of conscience as the "measure of honesty of [one’s] selfishness" to be a nonsensical provocation and reduction of Kant and Nietzsche’s more nuanced ideas. In light of a recent extreme political protest, the question of self-sacrifice as altruistic or selfish is soberingly complex. Is the deliberate annihilation of the body analogous to Conrad’s character, Stevie, who solemnly decides to plant a bomb, inadvertently destroying himself? The destruction of the building, according to Mr. Vladimir, is a protest against Western constructs of capital and rationality. Stevie was collateral. The lynched convict in Du Bois’s short story better aligns with Jesus’s instruction in Matthew, where the "Father who sees in secret will reward," and The Christ-Stranger grants him Paradise following his gruesome death.
Altruism being an illusion is a poignant truth. I posit that earnest do-gooders do so for its intrinsic value, not for external validation, glory, or accolades. As stated, because there are many social influences on our behavior, altruism is often steeped in ego. This makes it difficult to identify what really undergirds one’s pursuit of altruism. The love interest in James Joyce’s “Eveline” evinces how cynicism masquerades as ostensible altruism. On the surface, Frank offers Eveline an escape from her banal day-to-day life. However, by historicizing the short story, taking her to Buenos Aires could suggest a sex trafficking scheme. Joyce’s ambiguous ending forces us to reflect on characters’ motivations by reconsidering how self-interest obscures what we might initially classify as a good intention.
The notion that humans are innately selfish is something I have struggled with since I learned of it in Philosophy class because I vehemently disagree. If, at the least, our selfish nature inspires us to do supererogatory acts to be seen as a hero, this is only in the case of socially acceptable actions. Josh Green from The Marrow of Tradition conducts a completely selfless act without the promise of bestowed heroism because the racist society he operates in sides with McBane. He knows that he will be killed by McBane, his friends deter him, and his mother is dead, but he continues, to avenge her. Green is selfless because he killed white supremacist McBane with no possibility of heroism in racist Wellington.
I have to disagree with the claim you made that generalizes that people who believe faith is formed out of desperation are inherently non-believers. I have seen firsthand how people turn to God solely out of desperation or to cope unhealthily with trauma, despite believing in God myself. Regardless of their belief in God, people can still acknowledge when “Christians” turn to God not to take accountability for their lives. Another point that struck me as disagreeable was the notion that people operate on a social contract, acting only with the expectation of receiving something in return. Winnie from The Secret Agent contradicts the idea of operating on a social contract since she married Verloc for her brother’s sake, which meant sacrificing her own needs.
Marrow of Tradition’s Mr. Delamere exemplifies the falsity of Bach’s philosophy in his rescue of Sandy. Bach argues that humankind is innately selfish and we execute good acts for a momentary or quantifiable reward. Mr. Delamere, “the apex of an ideal aristocratic development,” may achieve joy from saving his devout servant, but the gain is meager in comparison to the deterioration of his physical layer (excitement causing his death), sociological layer (select men aware of his lying on the stand), and psychological layer (betraying the law system where he spent years establishing truth and justice) (61). Instead, he supports C.S. Lewis’s belief that not all personal joy is selfish. For how can Mr. Delamere be charged with sin when selflessness dominates over self-preservation?
Since I was a child I have been unconvinced by the notion of the spiritual realm and a God with divine powers. I resonate with your point that faith acts as a tool to answer questions that don’t have clear answers or to offer hope when hope is otherwise hard to find, and have grappled with the absence of these positive facets of faith in my own perspective. However, I have come to understand that my disbelief in God does not negate faith in other things, the strength of human conviction or the loyalty in brotherhood to name a few and this reinforces me in a similar way to faith in God.
In my study of the philosophy of religion, one of the most profound understandings of theism in my perspective was Sigmund Freud's explanation of the need for a God. Freud's view emphasizes his outlook on the pressing psychological yearning of individuals for a perfect father figure- a role that is often imperfectly or never fulfilled in individuals' lives. This explanation of the need for spirituality transcends the physical, sociological, psychological, and spiritual pointed out in your video, as it relies on the specific and widely-applicable phenomena experienced by people across a myriad of cultures. The creation of a God, along with worship of the God, can simply be explained by parental and generational trauma, as well as a seemingly epigenetic trait within individuals, according to Freudian philosophy.
I recently began pursuing some research in the realm of motivation. In my case focusing on motivation in education and learning, specifically focusing on the sociological and psychological impacts and the struggles that they can present. Though love does not have as much of an impact in this one case, this spiritual, uncanny love plays a major role in my other motivations in life. I often find myself unworried about social fears and even ignoring my mental well-being to do something significant for an important person in my life. Love is the driving force in many of my decisions.
When I was younger, my elementary school held an annual donation drive for hungry families. Out of a desire to be a good person, I went around collecting donations from my friends and families to support the cause. When I finally turned it in, I felt nothing. The charity event came back the following year. I didn’t participate. Reflecting back, I ask myself, why did I want to be a good person? The answer, because I thought it would bring me pleasure. Despite what C.S. Lewis claims, there’s no motive unsullied by the allure of reward. You cannot expect people to act on ideals alone, for we only align ourselves with said ideals based on the pleasures they provide. Reason requires reward, and no concept by itself benefits the individual. Rationality is selfishness and all humans are rational, proving that “it’s not possible to really be selfless.” (Dr. Marchbanks).
I agree with Richard Bach’s assertion that we are all innately selfish. We may act selflessly, but in reality, we do it because of some reward. However, I also agree with C.S. Lewis’s statement in The Problem of Pain that “rewards don’t sully motives.” Let’s examine the case of someone who volunteers at a homeless shelter every weekend because they think that it is the right thing to do. They do what they think is right because they are rewarded by feeling good. This doesn’t make their actions invalidated. Their actions are genuine because they enjoy helping people.
The idea of selflessness is a concept I have been intrinsically aware, sometimes, rather obsessed with, since I was a child. As I developed into a young adult, I realized I would not grow as a person in the ways I desired if I only thought about the needs of others. I believe that, while the idea Jesus presents in Matthew 6 explains the need for us to be ever-selless, this habitual selflessness can be paired with an effort to keep one’s own needs intact. In Marrow of Tradition, Janet commits an incredibly selfless act, but not before exclaiming her own feelings and emotions. Just like motivation, selflessness can be “messy”, a blend of selflessness and personal needs can be difficult to formulate and maintain.
I do not believe that we are all innately selfish. Instead, our motivations are driven by complex layers of understanding that build upon each other. It is necessary to delve deeper to identify these motivations. I find Professor Marchbank's model of the spiritual substratum accurately depicting the multidirectional nature of the relationship between these layers. While the familiar material world is on the surface, we often fail to explore deeper and instead make the blanket assumption that all actions stem from self-preservation. Without attempts to gain a deeper understanding, we remain unable to see the foundational bedrock--the spiritual dimension--that ultimately motivates our actions.
As a Catholic, I was taught that we are born in the image and likeness of God. So, when I began your video, I struggled understanding that we are innately selfish and there’s no way around it, as God wouldn’t intentionally do this in my mind. Unconsciously, the decisions one makes can have a more significant meaning than observed. Dr. Marchbanks discusses that altruism is an illusion, which makes me ponder how many actions I have performed inherently knowing it was for my benefit. I question Stevie’s motives in The Secret Agent because his actions, such as taking the bomb for Verloc, are not ones he intentionally knows are evil. He was doing a favor for the good of others, which combats this idea.
I don't believe that all humans are innately selfish and only feel or act sympathetic due to survival. I know this through seeing the selflessness of my mom and the love she shows for not only me but others. She will always go out of her way and sacrifice her comfort for others. When I was younger I would actually be frustrated by how much love she had for others since it was rarely reciprocated for her. As I grew and faced trauma, I still have hope and faith that there is a love that's pure, without ulterior motives even if I can't see it every day or it's blurred through hate because my mom exists, therefore, love exists.
Sigmund Freud's model of the unconscious, talks about the limited surfacing of mental activity, this resonates with the impact of alcohol on behavior. The inebriated state may reveal subconscious desires, typically restrained. Alcohol's influence on the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making and judgment between conscious and unconscious realms. Richard Bach's implied selfish motivations are only for our benefit. I agree with this view, even the act of giving love turns out to be for our own benefit, whether for happiness or receiving love. Both Freud and Bach talk about the conscious and unconscious realms and the selfishness behind our actions, further exploring the complexities of consciousness and motivation in human behavior.
Sacrificial love does reign in human blood. Despite human motivation being inherently messy, I think humans practice agape--but most people don’t have access to this love until they become a parent. To raise a child well, caring and loving for a being while expecting nothing in return, is the definition of selflessness. Like your model, I think maternal instincts go past the material world and reveal greater forces at play. In The Secret Agent, Winnie demonstrates agape with Stevie, as she shapes her entire life around his safety without ever needing anything in return from him. This maternal love for her brother is the founding force of his happiness, and sometimes the downfall of hers, but it’s worth it in the eyes of a mother.
The spiritual realm, although seemingly different from the physical, sociological, and psychological realms, actually manifests in each of these. This is why Jesus' parables, or O'Connor's stories are so effective; they use common situations to communicate the complexities of the spiritual realm. For example, Matthew 18 outlines the parable of the unforgiving servant, not to simply tell a good story, but to uncover the spiritual significance of forgiveness and mercy. Forgiveness and mercy are not traits of a self-preserving organism and suggest a deeper motivation rooted in the spiritual realm. Some may argue that the good feeling of righteousness and fairness after forgiving someone is the inherent selfishness of man, but as CS Lewis suggests "there are rewards that don't soley motives."
The time is now to do the right thing, to think long and hard in the moment. As the moment is all we have. I believe that we live in a world where meaning is in the states we experience rather than the outcomes of their byproduct. Beyond all change is the omnipresent possibility of lifting a smile onto a stranger’s face, as the light in that connection may never dim. Trust is the backbone of my faith in the spiritual realm, be it in the mystery of what is left unanswered or what we do know. Never sacrificing hunger for complacency, I feel ablaze.
I have previously considered the idea of “agape” and whether it is possible to be entirely selfless, coming to the conclusion that it is nearly impossible. However, I had not considered that this idea may be rooted in a desire for self-preservation rather than self-importance. The concept of self-preservation driving supposed selflessness is a reminder of Olivia Carteret’s reasoning in Chesnutt’s novel. She feigns selflessness by claiming she will donate Janet’s share of inheritance to Dr. Miller’s hospital when it is actually an attempt to keep her from incrimination. Richard Bach’s theory of one’s conscience being a measure of honesty of selflessness is also applicable. Olivia considers her decision a “comfortable conclusion” demonstrating her lack of honesty regarding her motivations.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provides a rigid, logical approach to understanding human behavior. However, people do not necessarily pursue their needs in Maslow’s order. Take, for example, a monk who neglects the need for shelter and nourishment in the pursuit of spiritual actualization. The behavior exhibited by someone, like a monk, who ignores certain needs in the pursuit of higher purpose supports your assertion that life’s layers are interactive. Moreover, the behavior that would drive one to ignore their essential needs points to a higher spiritual level of etiquette such as the agape love that Jesus preaches.
The idea is that everything that a person does for another, is in some way a benefit back to themselves, points to the fact that the sacrificial love that one makes for another is flawed and unattainable. Though it may be very difficult and possibly even angelic, I believe that humans can achieve this state of mind. To me, this seems to be the only way to alter the deeply inherited flaws that we have when it comes to international and human conflict. If this sort of agape love, where acts of going good for nothing in return, can become a sort of popular or desired state of consciousness, the human race has the potential for things that we couldn't even imagine. It doesn't matter where such love comes from, whether that be physical, sociological, psychological, or spiritual, it only matters that it is there.
Describing the complexity of life with levels is important as it acknowledges a moment accomplishing growth on multiple fronts. This idea is proof of a greater Designer at the helm, as "moments" cultivate within our physical body, society, psychological mind, and spirit, as if it is roots reaching into us. People have different depths of layers depicting what resonates most, but everyone's layers are harder to dig the deeper you go. When reaching thick soil or rockhead they are tempted to ground themselves as many are scared to find what may lay in their bedrock is a weak foundation.
In one of the earlier videos for Life is Layered, you utilized an image that I think is far more accurate in illustrating the layered life method. It showed the various layers penetrating each other, which I believe illustrates the lives we live. The layers are not static and rigid in their existence, but instead flow together and mix to create the whole of life and our experience of it. While the presented model is useful in dissecting the aspects of life, I think that earlier model better illustrates what Aquinas and others feel and experience. A mixture of parts that create a unique whole.
In Hebrew, the word for love is “ahava” and it has a similar meaning to the Greek “agape.” Ahava means that you are giving to someone, rather than imposing love onto someone. Major Carteret’s love for Dodie is arguably the antithesis of ahava. Manifestations of his love are attempts to further the propagation of his lineage and the prestige he feels entitled to; he utilizes his wife’s family wealth to invest in his media empire and businesses, attempts a government coup to secure power and wealth, yet spends little actual time with his son. His “love” benefits his hubris and imposes his future desires on to Dodie; it is akin to those who give alms for their reputation rather than altruism.
While I don’t believe a truly selfless act is possible, I do believe that doing a good act and not dwelling on it is the closest we can get. Dwelling on one’s own good deed narcissistically feeds the ego. C.S. Lewis’s idea that rewards don’t always sully motives also carries weight. A good act can still affect someone positively even if it was done for selfish reasons. Only someone living fully in the present can stop reminiscing on their good deeds and forgo their selfish intentions for the future. In Conrad’s The Secret Agent, Stevie’s intentions are good when he bombs the observatory, but the act is bad and selfish because he wants to stop the pain he feels when other people suffer.
To further complicate your ideas about agape love and selflessness, I’ll say that the presence of the kind of love you described can enable true selflessness. Agape love expects nothing in return but I think humans crave love (psychological layer) and acts of selflessness allow us to achieve it. We all know that offering aid and doing tasks for other people gets them to care about us and shows them that we care, but being generous to obtain and maintain agape love allows for true selflessness because although the reward might be clear, it's not guaranteed.
Agape love, the truest form of selfless love, was something I first learned about many years ago in Catholic school. This form of love is truly expressed by God, and a mother's love for her child is the second closest form of love. Unfortunately, as Dr. Marchbanks stated in the video, many theorists believe that is almost humanly impossible to be truly selfless, and there is always some selfish motivation underlying our actions in order for us to be rewarded. In "The Marrow of Tradition," Olivia Carteret selflessly gets on her hands and knees in front of the Millers--essentially humiliating herself--in order to save the life of Dodie; however, she selfishly wants her child to live despite the very recent passing of the Millers' child. Through Olivia's example, the ideas proposed in the video are heavily supported since motivation clouds selfless acts, showing how messy our lives truly are.
My best friend and I practice selfless love. I often find myself thinking, if she wants or needs something, I'd rather her have it than me. My love is reciprocated in kind. Humans are deeply social creatures and this is the backbone of our interactions with others. Biology suggests this is strategic. However, agape is a steep perversion of mammalian altruistic behaviors; generosity between friends rarely improves the survival of the human race. Perhaps the social and psychological elements of selfless love point to a metaphysical, spiritual, and eternal connection with others.
In my opinion, for an act to be considered selfless, one’s motives must be examined thoroughly. However, it is impossible to label someone’s action as selfless independent of knowing their exact thoughts since one’s own thoughts can only be truly known by themselves. Therefore, someone who believes they are selfless could very well already be performing acts of selfishness and is just lacking the “capacity to look consciously” and admit that they are, in fact, already committing a “crime against his own sense of self,” as mentioned in the beginning of the video.
What is necessary for living a fulfilling life is up for interpretation. What I believe to be an undeniable truth is that while, according to Maslow, surface-level needs must be dealt with to survive, addressing one's needs that go beyond the surface is necessary to truly live. Winnie, for example, only addressed her Physiological and safety needs by marrying Verloc. Unsurprisingly her life came to a tragic end. While there is no correct answer, I find that models that address one's needs that go beyond the surface, such as Dr. Marchbanks' model or a version of Maslow's pyramid that does not prioritize surface-level needs, are the blueprint for living a fulfilling life.
I really appreciate the approach you took, helping us to consider the whole person by looking at us from different perspectives. Having said that, I wonder if "layers" says exactly what we need to say. As an analytical tool - a metaphor we know has limits - it works; but I suspect that the self that is spirit is much more than one "layer" upon others. C.S. Lewis spoke of the spirit shot through all other dimensions, not just a part of us. But having said that (and I agree with CSL), I don't have a better way to say it than what you did. Well done!
I totally agree, Mike, that the spiritual dimension interpenetrates the others--that, in fact, all the layers interpenetrate one another! I make this point early in Part 2 of this series: ruclips.net/video/SuL5GUYjEOA/видео.html
I’m still not sure that “stratum” or “dimension” are accurate descriptors of the spiritual-not that I quarrel with your use as an expedient. I suspect that the life of the spirit, especially that of the Holy Spirit, is more like the aether Medievals talked about, and the material is embedded it in a variety of ways. How to say the virtually unsayable (at least now, short of Eternity) is a useful struggle. Nice talk!
Dr. M proposes whether all our actions, even unconsciously, are selfish. In Marrow of Tradition, Janet appears selfish for allowing her half-sister Olivia's son to receive life-saving care from her husband while with her dead child. However, I believe that Janet's decision might be driven by an unconscious desire to avoid the guilt of not saving a child when she had the power to do so. This created an uncomfortable thought that my seemingly selfish acts might not be inherently selfish, as our bodies may be protecting our mental health by preventing guilt, which can threaten our well-being. Our unconscious could prioritize our hierarchy of needs to ensure survival by minimizing negative emotions like guilt.
The idea of altruism has often been preached in churches that I have attended, but it is often accompanied by passages about Jesus’s acts and subsequently the idea of “earning” your way to heaven. This logic completely contradicts the teachings of Christ. In my relationship and interactions I am often asked to complete a task or act that on the surface has no return on investment for myself. Even though I am more than willing to comply it is usually with the thought in mind that the favor will be repaid and as such, I cannot consider myself altruistic.
While I believe that God is the only one who is able to show complete, unconditional love, I think that it is also possible for humans to demonstrate agape love. God created humans in His image, giving them the ability to demonstrate God’s qualities. Richard Bach’s saying reminds me of “Friends,” when Joey claims that everything anyone does is selfish, even if it's for the good of another person. Although I understand how this can be true, I don't believe this aligns with God's intentions with humans. God has given humans activities that both bring them pleasure and bring Him glory.
I find Bach’s assertion of conscience as the "measure of honesty of [one’s] selfishness" to be a nonsensical provocation and reduction of Kant and Nietzsche’s more nuanced ideas. In light of a recent extreme political protest, the question of self-sacrifice as altruistic or selfish is soberingly complex. Is the deliberate annihilation of the body analogous to Conrad’s character, Stevie, who solemnly decides to plant a bomb, inadvertently destroying himself? The destruction of the building, according to Mr. Vladimir, is a protest against Western constructs of capital and rationality. Stevie was collateral. The lynched convict in Du Bois’s short story better aligns with Jesus’s instruction in Matthew, where the "Father who sees in secret will reward," and The Christ-Stranger grants him Paradise following his gruesome death.
Altruism being an illusion is a poignant truth. I posit that earnest do-gooders do so for its intrinsic value, not for external validation, glory, or accolades. As stated, because there are many social influences on our behavior, altruism is often steeped in ego. This makes it difficult to identify what really undergirds one’s pursuit of altruism. The love interest in James Joyce’s “Eveline” evinces how cynicism masquerades as ostensible altruism. On the surface, Frank offers Eveline an escape from her banal day-to-day life. However, by historicizing the short story, taking her to Buenos Aires could suggest a sex trafficking scheme. Joyce’s ambiguous ending forces us to reflect on characters’ motivations by reconsidering how self-interest obscures what we might initially classify as a good intention.
The notion that humans are innately selfish is something I have struggled with since I learned of it in Philosophy class because I vehemently disagree. If, at the least, our selfish nature inspires us to do supererogatory acts to be seen as a hero, this is only in the case of socially acceptable actions. Josh Green from The Marrow of Tradition conducts a completely selfless act without the promise of bestowed heroism because the racist society he operates in sides with McBane. He knows that he will be killed by McBane, his friends deter him, and his mother is dead, but he continues, to avenge her. Green is selfless because he killed white supremacist McBane with no possibility of heroism in racist Wellington.
I have to disagree with the claim you made that generalizes that people who believe faith is formed out of desperation are inherently non-believers. I have seen firsthand how people turn to God solely out of desperation or to cope unhealthily with trauma, despite believing in God myself. Regardless of their belief in God, people can still acknowledge when “Christians” turn to God not to take accountability for their lives. Another point that struck me as disagreeable was the notion that people operate on a social contract, acting only with the expectation of receiving something in return. Winnie from The Secret Agent contradicts the idea of operating on a social contract since she married Verloc for her brother’s sake, which meant sacrificing her own needs.
Marrow of Tradition’s Mr. Delamere exemplifies the falsity of Bach’s philosophy in his rescue of Sandy. Bach argues that humankind is innately selfish and we execute good acts for a momentary or quantifiable reward. Mr. Delamere, “the apex of an ideal aristocratic development,” may achieve joy from saving his devout servant, but the gain is meager in comparison to the deterioration of his physical layer (excitement causing his death), sociological layer (select men aware of his lying on the stand), and psychological layer (betraying the law system where he spent years establishing truth and justice) (61). Instead, he supports C.S. Lewis’s belief that not all personal joy is selfish. For how can Mr. Delamere be charged with sin when selflessness dominates over self-preservation?